Alan Wake

PogMoThoin

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the torch effects look terrible.

Of Course, its the consolised fcuk up of what could have been a great game if they made what they intended at first

hooradiation

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Of Course, its the consolised fcuk up of what could have been a great game if they made what they intended at first

Oh great, this shit again.

It looks grand, and if "the torch looks crap" is the biggest concern the whining PC fanboys can level at it then i think this game will be just fine.

PogMoThoin

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh great, this shit again.

It looks grand, and if "the torch looks crap" is the biggest concern the whining PC fanboys can level at it then i think this game will be just fine.

Its not just the graphics, its all effects and physics
I refer You to my post in the first page of this thread, let them built the game they first intended, not this dumbed down POS
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63004578&postcount=15

I was very excited once, but not anymore, meh tbh

Pushtrak

EnterNow wrote: »

Yup Im one of those...wow indeed. Wow that anybody actually listens to this fool, and wow that this tripe can be classified as a joke/parody. Wow. And from 1:30...he doesnt talk about the game, have another listen (not you L31mr0d, if you thought up to 1:30 was bad, its gets worse believe it or not).

Missed the edit, did you?

L31mr0d

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the torch effects look terrible.

The torch effects do look pretty bad all right. It looks like a laser beam or something. They really have no excuse as well being on the console. Uncharted 2 showed just how capable the PS3 is at lighting effects.

But what Pog says is right. Compared to what the PC version would of had, this game will have shorter draw distances, lower AA, probably zero HDR, lower res textures and will overall be graphically weaker in nearly every way.

I still keep Crysis installed on my PC that can run it at max settings and show console gamers when they come over how, even with a two year old game, the PC is still capable of trumping anything that consoles have come out with since in terms of graphics. Capcoms recent releases such as RE5 and SFIV look superior on the PC.

Even if it's a good while after the console release (such as GeoWI) I still hope they'll decide to release the PC version of Alan Wake in it's true form.

Retr0gamer

L31mr0d wrote: »

The torch effects do look pretty bad all right. It looks like a laser beam or something. They really have no excuse as well being on the console. Uncharted 2 showed just how capable the PS3 is at lighting effects.

Well the PS3 is a little better than the 360 at lighting effects in exclusives and this is a 360 exclusive.

People shouldn't be complaining that the game took so long to come out. The last game remedy made was Max Payne and that took over 5 years to come out (they made max payne 2 pretty fast but they already had the engine for that game). I do think it's a pity it won't be on PC though.

Myrddin

Pushtrak wrote: »

Missed the edit, did you?

Most people edit their mistakes out & rewrite what they want. Wow, one of those eh? Drop it Pushtrak - I apologise if you took offence at my comments about the reviewer. I meant nothing personally to you, thank you for posting the video, as I got to see new footage of the game. My gripe was with the "reviewer" in the video - not with you man.

Back on topic again - if they develpoed Alan Wake the way it was actually intended (leaps & bounds ahead of anything else), could it be a case than the current generation consoles wouldnt have the power to run it that way? Any thats why we have the now seemingly less impacting shots of the game - its pushing consoles to their current limit. Maybe they thought the console market was too big to skip?

PogMoThoin

Microsoft are the ones funding this game, they're the ones calling the shots as they've way more cash out of focusing on consoles and get next to nothing from a pc version. As strange as it sounds, Microsoft are the ones fcuking up pc gaming

hooradiation

I'd wager the rampant piracy by PC owners themselves have far more to do with it.

The concept that "<Insert boogyman here> are fcuking up pc gaming" as if they have nothing better to do than pick on PC owners for no real reason is childish nonsense.

If there was sufficient money to be made then they would supply that market, there isn't so they are not.

PogMoThoin

hooradiation wrote: »

I'd wager the rampant piracy by PC owners themselves have far more to do with it.

The concept that "<Insert boogyman here> are fcuking up pc gaming" as if they have nothing better to do than pick on PC owners for no real reason is childish nonsense.

If there was sufficient money to be made then they would supply that market, there isn't so they are not.

We've had this argument before, piracy is not killing the pc, greed is. Piracy is just as rampant on consoles, in fact the 360 releases usually get released to the torrent sites a week or 2 before release, long before their pc counterparts. In case You forget, that was only those that were connected when the update was released, there are loads more not updated. Some people don't update or use XBL.

This is for another thread though, topic here is Alan Wake, which could have been great and looks worse and worse with every update

hooradiation

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Piracy is just as rampant on consoles

No, it really isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.
But if you're going to cling to that fallacy then I'm not going bother with you, you are free to believe that nonsense if you want.

Then again reality has a well known bias towards consoles.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

This is for another thread though, topic here is Alan Wake, which could have been great and looks worse and worse with every update

I disagree and i think your entire problem with this game can simply be distilled into "it's not on the PC". It's like watching a PS3 fanboy dump on a 360 only release simply because it's a 360 only release.

PogMoThoin

hooradiation wrote: »

I disagree and i think your entire problem with this game can simply be distilled into "it's not on the PC". It's like watching a PS3 fanboy dump on a 360 only release simply because it's a 360 only release.

Hold on, I have a 360 and thats not my point at all. I would have prefered to have played this on pc. Methinks You're trolling now

L31mr0d

hooradiation wrote: »

I disagree and i think your entire problem with this game can simply be distilled into "it's not on the PC".

Hold on. Before you continue down this ridiculous line of accusations, answer this question, if Alan Wake was developed to utilize, fully, current PC graphical technology and also Console Graphical technology which would be visually superior?

The argument is really rather simple and moot tbh. It's like saying which would drive faster, a Ferrari or a Ford Focus.

Naikon

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Microsoft are the ones funding this game, they're the ones calling the shots as they've way more cash out of focusing on consoles and get next to nothing from a pc version. As strange as it sounds, Microsoft are the ones fcuking up pc gaming

Simple solution: Boycott Microsoft products or pirate
the s4it out of Windows and other microsoft products.

Microsoft are not historically known for playing fair.
Gamers need to make a collective stand agaisnt MS.
The future of pc gaming depends on it.

The only metric that this company understands is cash.
Deprive them of their cash no matter how small == win.

SeantheMan

Tooooo much hype surrounding the game !

When it comes out, and I'll put money on it, It will recieve average reviews, will score between 65-84 %s

I find all the hype is due to the fact the game was announced so long ago, been in production for long, everyone always wondered when it would be released, and now that its finally here....it will be a let down.

The same thing if Duke Nukem had of been released, 10 years in the making, only never to see the light of day

Pushtrak

SeantheMan wrote: »

Tooooo much hype surrounding the game !

Probably so.

When it comes out, and I'll put money on it, It will recieve average reviews, will score between 65-84 %s

Above 80 is only average to you? Are you one of these only happy with above 90 games? I've played many games that got in the 6/10 territory that were a lot of fun. Course, I wouldn't rush out to buy one after seeing such a score.

SeantheMan

Above 80 is fine for me.

But what I tend to find in magazines etc and reviews, is that the reviewers care less when a game recieves lower than 90% (5 Stars, Gold Award etc)

Once its below 90%, it seems like whether they give it 72%, 78% or 85% is of no consequence, it just didn't get the Gold, and that we should not give it such attention as the rest.

I own and love plenty of games in the sub 90% category.

In saying that, out of the 17 steam games I have which are rated by Metacritic, only 2 are below 85% (DOD:S and UT3)

Ciaran500

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/alan-wake-x10-trailer-2 - New trailer
http://www.eurogamer.net/gallery.php?game_id=4591&article_id=964921 - New screenshots

May 21st release, this year!

PogMoThoin

Pc gamers get fcuked over once again

Some games are more suited for the intimacy of the PC, and others are best played from the couch in front of a larger TV screen. We ultimately realised that the most compelling way to experience "Alan Wake" was on the Xbox 360 platform, so we focused on making it an Xbox 360 exclusive. Both Microsoft and Remedy have long histories in PC game development. This decision was about matching this specific game to the right platform.

Lame excuse, isn't the horror genre supposed to be played alone, not have your whole family breathing down your neck while You game in your living room?

Agricola

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Pc gamers get fcuked over once again



Lame excuse, isn't the horror genre supposed to be played alone, not have your whole family breathing down your neck while You game in your living room?

Lame? Horseshít excuse more like. In the game and film industry, decisions are only made for one reason, maximising profit. Yet another developer drops the pc version in order to focus all efforts on the console version cause thats where the moolah is. FFS. :mad:

I have a feeling it would have been like the first Stalker anyway. Noticeably dated straight out of the box.

gizmo

L31mr0d wrote: »

Hold on. Before you continue down this ridiculous line of accusations, answer this question, if Alan Wake was developed to utilize, fully, current PC graphical technology and also Console Graphical technology which would be visually superior?

If the game was developed to fully utilise current PC graphical technology it wouldn't be playable on the vast majority of PCs either. :rolleyes:

And yes we have had this debate before and it's getting ****ing tiring. Of course it would look better on a decent PC, that is not the point here. As a game Alan Wake is looking just as impressive now as it ever did. As a tech demo not so much, but then again I'd regard gameplay to be more important than graphics in games, especially when the differences will be fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

As for this specific announcement, I do think it's a pity though. Oddly enough the "matching this specific game to the right platform" is something I agree in fully, however it's something I'd like to decide for myself and not by certain platform owners.

leninbenjamin

gizmo wrote: »

As for this specific announcement, I do think it's a pity though. Oddly enough the "matching this specific game to the right platform" is something I agree in fully, however it's something I'd like to decide for myself and not by certain platform owners.

I don't. As a musician I can't tell people where to situate themselves when listening to my music. My Sis can't tell people on what wall they should hang her paintings. Same for almost all of the 'traditional' arts, yet in the digital world we have people pulling out this bullsh*t excuse supposedly in the name of the 'artistic experience' just coz they can get away with it. I really really hate that kind of attitude.

We all know this decision was taken in the name of revenue. MS don't make as much for every PC sale as they do for every Xbox360 sale so they cut the PC platform to generate extra Xbox sales, it makes perfect economic sense tbh.

Still annoying as f*ck, it doesn't take much work to make a PC port of an Xbox title. Most of them will run without alternation.

Vegeta

Who gives a fcuk anyway.

Looks like yet another film with gaming elements tacked on. Meh to be honest.

Ok other gameplay clips make it look a little better than the one I watched there so this could be decent

robby^5

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I don't. As a musician I can't tell people where to situate themselves when listening to my music. My Sis can't tell people on what wall they should hang her paintings. Same for almost all of the 'traditional' arts, yet in the digital world we have people pulling out this bullsh*t excuse supposedly in the name of the 'artistic experience' just coz they can get away with it. I really really hate that kind of attitude.

Nor can game developers, sure they may want me to play on my couch but I ultimately decide where my 360 is situated in my house.

You, as a musician, decide what medium you want your music listened to on be it vinyl, tape, cd or digital download. I dont have much of a choice in that regards if I want to listen to your music. You may choose to offer a few different options, but ultimately that's your decision and you might decide that tape doesnt do your music justice in the same way a games developer may decide they would rather their game played on an XBox 360 rather than a PC, Wii or Playstation 3.

In the same way you're sister has the final say on what type of canvas her painting is painted on.

That said I would guess that this was a choice by a developer that was going further and further beyond a normal development cycle and decided to pick one platform so they could get their proverbial **** together and actually release this game this decade...oh wait.

PogMoThoin

gizmo wrote: »

As a game Alan Wake is looking just as impressive now as it ever did

You can't honestly think that, with the horror genre the gameplay doesn't play as big a role, its the atmosphere, which is created by the graphics, effects and sounds. F.E.A.R. springs to mind here, when I first played it, in the dark, alone on my pc, it jumped me out of my seat. This won't happen when I'm playing in the sitting room with the lights on, family watching. If this game followed the development route it setout at first, it could have been great, instead it being dumbed down and consolified

F.E.A.R. didn't work as a console game btw, atmaosphere didn't work on a TV

gizmo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I don't. As a musician I can't tell people where to situate themselves when listening to my music. My Sis can't tell people on what wall they should hang her paintings. Same for almost all of the 'traditional' arts, yet in the digital world we have people pulling out this bullsh*t excuse supposedly in the name of the 'artistic experience' just coz they can get away with it. I really really hate that kind of attitude.

We all know this decision was taken in the name of revenue. MS don't make as much for every PC sale as they do for every Xbox360 sale so they cut the PC platform to generate extra Xbox sales, it makes perfect economic sense tbh.

Still annoying as f*ck, it doesn't take much work to make a PC port of an Xbox title. Most of them will run without alternation.

You misunderstand, what I meant was if a game is released for several platforms then I like to be able to decide what platform I get it for. For instance, Bioshock 2 just arrived in the post for the PC, I play Modern Warfare 2 for the PC constantly, I've pre-ordered Bad Company 2 for the 360 and I'm currently playing Mass Effect 2 on my 360. (My PS3 is currently downloading Flower in case someone is stupid enough to make a comment )

And yes it does take a bit of work to get a 360 build working on the PC, I've seen you say otherwise before and I'd be interested to hear your logic behind this one.

That's beside the point anyway, by canning the PC version completely (assuming that's what they're doing and not just letting it be a timed exclusive) they're doing just that, ensuring that it remains a big "360" title moreso than anything else. The logic behind this is, unfortunately, pretty obvious so as much as I don't like it I can still see where they're coming from.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

You can't honestly think that, with the horror genre the gameplay doesn't play as big a role, its the atmosphere, which is created by the graphics, effects and sounds. F.E.A.R. springs to mind here, when I first played it, in the dark, alone on my pc, it jumped me out of my seat. This won't happen when I'm playing in the sitting room with the lights on, family watching. If this game followed the development route it setout at first, it could have been great, instead it being dumbed down and consolified

You're not comparing like with like here, what about the people who will play it alone in their sitting room with the lights off on a bigger screen with a better sound system attached? Or the people whose home PCs are in the lit environment you've described? You're also ignoring that some of the scariest games ever created were for consoles so it's not really valid there either.

As for the route of development, this is where it's getting a bit daft. Pardon me if I'm wrong but isn't the Jan '10 trailer not the FIRST gameplay trailer we've seen of the game? And looking at the tech demo from a few years back, isn't EVERYTHING they showed off capable of being run on the 360? (The correct answer here is yes in case you're wondering). So what are we really going to loose here? The usual graphical niceties and kb/m support, hardly evidence of it being "dumbed down", is it?

PogMoThoin wrote: »

F.E.A.R. didn't work as a console game btw, atmaosphere didn't work on a TV

And no, FEAR 2 didn't work because it was dumbed down for the consoles. A situation made even more evident when one played it on the PC. Just like Deus Ex 2 *spits* :mad:

Helix

SeantheMan wrote: »

Tooooo much hype surrounding the game !

When it comes out, and I'll put money on it, It will recieve average reviews, will score between 65-84 %s

played it

it wont

cant say more til the 18th

Sisko

ooooooo00000000000000ooooooooo

:pac:


As for the dumbed down comment in the usual PC v Console argument. In fairness, any game that's made for consoles instead of made for PC's is gonna be dumbed down compared to what would be capable on a PC.

Console gaming is generally 'dumbed down' as it has to be, they'd be unplayable on consoles otherwise.

Played bf2 on pc for years, playing 1943 on the ps3 is hilarious. But I see all the dumbed down elements of it as necessary as it wouldnt work if it was like bf2 on pc.

Mr E

Review Embargo is over, and reviews have started to appear.

Eurogamer gave it a

7/10

which is a pretty low score compared to others.

PogMoThoin

360 version was available on pirate sites yesterday, whens it out?